Kxmode wrote on Oct 8, 2020, 13:50:

NKD wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 21:43:

Kxmode wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 20:34:
Scientists can look but they will never find another earth that has all the right ingredients to sustain life; at least not in our universe.

There's no reason to believe that. The universe is terrible at making just one of something. If there's one of something, there's probably a billion more. The universe is quite vast after all. Our star and neighboring planets aren't anything special, why should our planet be?

History is long and filled with people saying that "scientists won't find X" or "X is impossible" and then being wrong.

History is also rife with people who said the earth is flat and/or suspended on the back of a giant lifeform like a turtle or elephants. The Bible shot down that idea LONG before science caught up. All indications are that life only exists here.

How about heliocentrism? Or that the Bible claims man can live hundreds of years?
And I'm pretty certain the cure for leprosy in the Bible isn't accurate.

Orogogus wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 22:29:

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 19:33:
Ugh, what is going on in this thread? :o

As far as I can tell, Kxmode's religion came into view again, so it's time for a dogpile of smug liberal mockery and derision.

He has a habit of correcting other people's religious views when they do not conform to his.

To me, that's much more smug. No part of him allows for other religions to be correct.

My God has blessed us with what is hopefully a great game. Praise Jehovah!

Cutter wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 12:50:
Good for them. It was like those insipid articles from the NYT that whinge about every time far right groups do something no one can do that thing anymore. When they started wearing Hawaiian shirts the NYT liberals stated no one could wear them anymore. So if the far right groups start wearing pink shirts and carrying rainbow flags they're out too? Then it just becomes a game where anyone that's your political opposite can co-opt anything by using it themselves, it's completely asinine.

First, can you link us to "all those" NYT articles?

Which of these scenarios bother you?
1) That no business can use the swastika anymore, because Nazis used it?
2) That a lot of white boys, plenty interns in the White House, and plenty Proud Boys, were using the OK sign to jokingly say "I'm a white supremacist," then got angry when people said "ok, you're a white supremacist." No one has been angry at someone not using it in that way, because it's exceptionally obvious who is using it when, unless you think all those White House interns suddenly decided to say "OK!" in their photos despite it never being seen before.

VaranDragon wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 03:27:
Anyone try Among us? Reviews are through the roof, and it's cheap. Thinking of getting it.

I've been playing on my phone, since maybe Thursday of last week.
F2P, cosmetic purchases only (and you have a bunch you can use, otherwise), but a blast. I don't know how much longevity there is, but I'm digging it.

The issue on mobile is that you hold the phone landscape, and my phone is so long that typing is a longer process, haha. Overall, since typing on the phone is a bit slower and more annoying, communication is worse.

There are also issues with sore losers quitting as soon as you know they're the imposter, or lame people joining and quitting games until they're the imposter, and you'll feel you're the imposter far too infrequently, but as a whole? Yeah, a lot of fun.

Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 11:03:
I have little doubt you're right Beamer. As I said, the Oscar voting is known to be very political.

I'll see if I can find it, but a few weeks back I watched a video on Spielberg and his 1-2 punch of Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, and how old Hollywood didn't much respect him until that point, and no one thought he could pull Schindler's List off (in fairness, the closest he'd come to trying was The Color Purple, which would probably make anyone think he needed to stick to pulp.)

Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 08:44:

jdreyer wrote on Oct 5, 2020, 02:47:
What did you think about Shakespeare in Love winning over Saving Private Ryan?

Yeah, that seemed very weird. I know the Oscar voting is very political I don't know what was going on that year. There are plenty of odd choices like that throughout the years at the Oscars.

1) Weinstein was unprecedentedly aggressive in selling the film to Academy voters. It was effective

2) Spielberg had just won Best Picture 5 years ago. It took him a long time to get there, with many older voters thinking he was some brash kid making pulp junk. Many voters didn't want to give someone two BPs in one decade, particularly this kid that made pulpy junk

3) The Thin Red Line was a similar film, from a more critically beloved director, who'd never won anything. For fans of those types of films, this was a tempting alternative. Less accessible, more prestigious, deeper. It almost definitely split the vote.

Saving Private Ryan, to me, easily deserves it. It's absolutely more accessible and dumbed down than The Thin Red Line, and made for a much wider audience. It is sometimes manipulative. But it's a better film. I've not watched it in ages, but pretty much every war film since has been heavily inspired by it. It was massively influential, because it was incredibly well made. Unlike so many war films, it still had that Spielberg heart, which is what makes it accessible and possibly dumbed down, but also what makes it stick with you long after you've seen it.
Plus, it got an incredible supporting performance from batshit insane Tom Sizemore, which is a feat in itself (I actually think he had quite a few good performances, but the drugs, man, the drugs.)

It's one of the biggest North Korea moves he's done. A pointless, excessive show of strength.

That's so unamerican

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Oct 4, 2020, 14:32:

Quinn wrote on Oct 4, 2020, 14:04:
Look at those two. Disgusting hypocrites. I never had a good word to say about Trump, here or anywhere else, but seriously, both of you: you sicken me, get counseling.

No, but you and your ilk have been wearing a "fuck your feelings" shirt for years and are now vainly grasping for pearls to clutch. Fuck your feelings.

Or people like Tucker Carlson, who spent months telling us that we need to sacrifice some people to save the economy.
It's all well and good, until we start realizing that the person we most need to sacrifice to save the country is the man driving us off the cliff.

I love that all the people that spent the past 4 years telling us that (incorrect) facts don't care about feelings, that they enjoy "owning the libs" and feed off of "liberal tears," that applauded every time the President made a tweet using a new insult for someone, that said him posting a tweet that said the only good Democrat was a dead Democrat, have endlessly said the death penalty is good, that applauded splitting families up, that applauded Kyle Rittenhouse killing protestors, that said that Breonna Taylor shouldn't have lived in a drug house (that had no drugs), and that constantly told us that masks aren't important and this is just the flu...


Are now trying to say "how dare you be so disrespectful, this is serious!"

"Why isn't the media talking about this!?" weirdos scream in a topic linking to the media talking about something.

ududy wrote on Oct 2, 2020, 12:37:
As far as I know, she's guilty of the terrible crime of reminding people that gender is a biological reality and not merely some social construct. Yes, burn her at the stake. Our society is crazier than ever, and the internet mob - those venomous people allegedly protecting tolerance and humanity - is the ugliest phenomena of the times.

So, how about someone that's got three chromosomes?
You talk about biological reality, but aside from not understanding the difference between sex and gender, you seem to not really know basic biology.

PHJF wrote on Oct 1, 2020, 10:15:

Beamer wrote on Oct 1, 2020, 09:59:

wtf_man wrote on Oct 1, 2020, 09:49:

Sepharo wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 20:25:
In the U.S. software engineers are exempt from overtime regulations. The company can pay it but it's not law. I've been in the industry many years, don't know of anyone around here that gets paid OT. But frankly I appreciate being able to work whenever I want and not keeping my time or punchclocking whatever. My particular company can get really busy if there is a hard deadline coming up but crunch is mostly not a thing for us thankfully. But you submit your own estimates for work, so if you're way over what you thought it would be you better have a good explanation or be willing to work some late nights to catch yourself up. Not required, but I'm sure it reflects on your performance if you never get anything done when you say you will.

Right.

As far as I know that exemption not restricted to just software engineers, but any salaried employee vs. hourly in the US. No Overtime pay for Salaried Employees.
That may have changed but I have had a Salary type job in will over 25 years.

Above $36,000. Below that, and they would be eligible.
How do I know that? In order to avoid furloughs when our revenue plummeted in March, my company rolled out short-term pay reductions. I took a 12% hit. The average was 5%. People making $40k weren't impacted, to avoid any chance of putting them below this, but I don't think we have many people making below $45k.

Apparently the Obama administration tried to make it $47,500, or $913 per week, but a court shot that down.

So instead of being furloughed and making an extra $600 a week in unemployment benefits you got to keep working while making even less money. I'd be interested in seeing the total monetary loss you suffered as a result.

For me, a lot.
For others, less. Likely more meaningful than for me.

I wasn't involved in the decision, but I stand by it. We didn't do layoffs. Our competitors did. They also furloughed, and most (but not all) of the layoffs came from people furloughed. Some did something along the lines of an every Friday furlough, which means no unemployment. Some did long term furloughs, but it isn't really like there was less work, just a bunch of people already overworked now even more overworked.

The frustrating part is that our division is actually flat on the year now. We'd been down, but we rebounded. However, bonuses aren't tied to just our division, which is frustrating when everyone else in the company is down. I also can't promote anyone right now, which drives me insane, and I've spent way too much time pushing hirings back in order to save money to use for end of the year promotions.

On the plus side, when the calendar year rolls over we'll be in really solid shape.

wtf_man wrote on Oct 1, 2020, 09:49:

Sepharo wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 20:25:
In the U.S. software engineers are exempt from overtime regulations. The company can pay it but it's not law. I've been in the industry many years, don't know of anyone around here that gets paid OT. But frankly I appreciate being able to work whenever I want and not keeping my time or punchclocking whatever. My particular company can get really busy if there is a hard deadline coming up but crunch is mostly not a thing for us thankfully. But you submit your own estimates for work, so if you're way over what you thought it would be you better have a good explanation or be willing to work some late nights to catch yourself up. Not required, but I'm sure it reflects on your performance if you never get anything done when you say you will.

Right.

As far as I know that exemption not restricted to just software engineers, but any salaried employee vs. hourly in the US. No Overtime pay for Salaried Employees.
That may have changed but I have had a Salary type job in will over 25 years.

Above $36,000. Below that, and they would be eligible.
How do I know that? In order to avoid furloughs when our revenue plummeted in March, my company rolled out short-term pay reductions. I took a 12% hit. The average was 5%. People making $40k weren't impacted, to avoid any chance of putting them below this, but I don't think we have many people making below $45k.

Apparently the Obama administration tried to make it $47,500, or $913 per week, but a court shot that down.

Acleacius wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 14:49:

Beamer wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 12:57:

mxmissile wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 12:07:
Woke SJW rage incoming.

I'm confused. What's woke, or SJW, about this, and who is raging harder than you are against "woke" and "SJW?"

Few seem as obsessed with social issues as you, so aren't you an SJW?
And if we moved to a standard 50 hour work week, would you call anyone against that an SJW? Really?

Some people are so far over a cliff they don't even realize it.

I think he meant "I'm looking for attention!". Yeah I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

After being here almost 20 years without blocking anyone, I've started blocking the attention seekers who run into every thread yelling "SJW" and then running away.

I guess this guy goes on the list. WaltC is going to be the only 4chan personality left here for me.
(as opposed to conservative, as several here are conservative or lean conservative and are excellent for actual discussion.)

mxmissile wrote on Sep 30, 2020, 12:07:
Woke SJW rage incoming.

I'm confused. What's woke, or SJW, about this, and who is raging harder than you are against "woke" and "SJW?"

Few seem as obsessed with social issues as you, so aren't you an SJW?
And if we moved to a standard 50 hour work week, would you call anyone against that an SJW? Really?

Some people are so far over a cliff they don't even realize it.

Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:30:

Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:

Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:
Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

Then Apple can refuse to offer free to play products. Seems simple enough to me.

But wait, isn't Apple profiting through sales of their phones already for having so many 'free' apps and games available to their buyers?

Consumers lose if f2p disappears. While many of us may hate it, there are consumers that enjoy it. And there are products out there that couldn't exist without a constant revenue stream. f2p lets everyone partake - not all f2p is bad.

As for the hardware, they bake app revenue into the business model. A lot of their spending is in this area. Cut their app revenue in half and there will be repercussions in other areas. Same would go for Google, who also makes up for app revenue by collecting infinitely more data on us and selling access to us based upon that data.

Dwarf-Snowninja wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 16:21:

Beamer wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:27:

Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 06:31:
People keep wrongly focusing on the up front 30% cut for selling the app/game via their store. That is not what the suit is all about.

The suit is about the store wanting after the sale 30% of any and all digital products or services purchased via the app/game forever.

That is like Walmart saying to computer and smartphone makers, we want 30% of any digital products or services purchased via the device if the device was sold in our stores.

Apple is doing every thing it can to focus the discussion on the 30% cut of the app/game sale price (which is just business as usual perfectly legal) and wants to avoid at all costs discussion of the 30% of all digital based revenue the app/game may traffic (which is a whole other, new ball game) and something I cannot justify.

Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

It's not an easy argument on either side, despite how some seem to think it is. About 70% of mobile spending in the US is through iOS, so if you're a dev and want to reach the widest and most active audience, you need to be on Apple. But Apple also limits software to just their app store. And Apple takes an aggressive 30% of everything. This has been an issue for Amazon's app selling digital products, which they got around, but others have not. It's an issue for any video service.

At the same time, for Apple, most of these apps are free up front.

Solution, to me, seems like there are a few obvious ways. One could be a graduated plan. This would penalize small devs, but maybe it's 30% of the first million, 20% of the next million, 15% thereafter. Maybe it's 30% of the download, 15% of in-app purchases, but this would just incentivize in-app purchases (ugh.) Maybe it's allowing for separate storefronts, so Epic can have their own again, but Apple claims the walled garden is a big reason why consumers buy their products (and we can't really argue well otherwise.)

They definitely don't have 70% of the US market, its closer to 40-55% depending on the source, with a ~35% worldwide. I do agree with you Beamer that there isn't an easy solution since, as you stated, many more apps are free with in app purchases. As much as I dislike Epic, if they'd gone about this in a different matter rather than engaging in a pissing contest with Apple, they might've had a leg to stand on, but given that the judge's comments, that seems a lot less likely now.

I said of spend, not of the market.
Yes, there are a lot of Android phones out there, but Apple owners spend far more on apps than Android owners.

One source at random:
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/

iOS App Store 2018 revenue came to $46.6 billon, while Google Play revenue stood at $24.8 billion by this measure

Teddy wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 10:11:

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 29, 2020, 06:31:
People keep wrongly focusing on the up front 30% cut for selling the app/game via their store. That is not what the suit is all about.

The suit is about the store wanting after the sale 30% of any and all digital products or services purchased via the app/game forever.

That is like Walmart saying to computer and smartphone makers, we want 30% of any digital products or services purchased via the device if the device was sold in our stores.

Apple is doing every thing it can to focus the discussion on the 30% cut of the app/game sale price (which is just business as usual perfectly legal) and wants to avoid at all costs discussion of the 30% of all digital based revenue the app/game may traffic (which is a whole other, new ball game) and something I cannot justify.

Precisely this. If Apple invests in testing software to make sure it runs and make sure it's clear of malware, alongside actual distribution of said software, then sure they've earned a cut. If I choose to buy a cosmetic skin for a character in a game... why does Apple deserve 30% of that again? What did they do to earn that?

Because many of these apps, including Fortnite, are free to play. Apple makes 30% of literally nothing, in that case.

It's not an easy argument on either side, despite how some seem to think it is. About 70% of mobile spending in the US is through iOS, so if you're a dev and want to reach the widest and most active audience, you need to be on Apple. But Apple also limits software to just their app store. And Apple takes an aggressive 30% of everything. This has been an issue for Amazon's app selling digital products, which they got around, but others have not. It's an issue for any video service.

At the same time, for Apple, most of these apps are free up front.

Solution, to me, seems like there are a few obvious ways. One could be a graduated plan. This would penalize small devs, but maybe it's 30% of the first million, 20% of the next million, 15% thereafter. Maybe it's 30% of the download, 15% of in-app purchases, but this would just incentivize in-app purchases (ugh.) Maybe it's allowing for separate storefronts, so Epic can have their own again, but Apple claims the walled garden is a big reason why consumers buy their products (and we can't really argue well otherwise.)

Wow, none of those graphics look up to par for 2000, let alone 2020.


Ha!